[ads11]

Originally Posted by smartcat

But Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules needs no 'landing strip' preparation - it can land pretty much anywhere, in a cloud of dust.

..

Here's my favourite 'land anywhere' story on the C-130. Behold below some of the zaniest carrier hijinks.

Unassisted take off and landing!!! With a Hercules. On a Forrestal class. So it wouldn't even have the real estate of a big old Nimitz class. It boggles the mind what these two Navy pilots did. I can't imagine what the meeting must've been like where someone pitched this idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

Also coming back to Sweden, the infamous J-turn of the Saab Viggen was designed for quick turnarounds on any runway, be it an actual air field or a road. That's beside it being a helluva cool party trick.

[Sip]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Its not as challenging as it sounds.

It is challenging indeed. Navigational aspect with makeshift arrangements are explained to some extant by you. It requires an effort of different scale to provide impeccably safe set up on an expressway vis-à-vis a safe place like a base. Everything there is arranged professionally. Whole set up is tailor-made for flying. Fighter flying is much more complex than transport flying. So for a C130J its much routine task but not so for a fighter jet. Every one inside a base is familiar with aerospace safety aspects much different to the presence of huge number of excited spectators who also present a situation of concern. There are precision equipments, safety services including arrestor barrier, soft ground area, adequate surveillance, bird hazard management etc. FOD (Foreign Object Damage) risk is one of the biggest challenges.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Sip

It is challenging indeed. Navigational aspect with makeshift arrangements are explained to some extant by you. It requires an effort of different scale to provide impeccably safe set up on an expressway vis-à-vis a safe place like a base. Everything there is arranged professionally. Whole set up is tailor-made for flying. Fighter flying is much more complex than transport flying. So for a C130J its much routine task but not so for a fighter jet. Every one inside a base is familiar with aerospace safety aspects much different to the presence of huge number of excited spectators who also present a situation of concern. There are precision equipments, safety services including arrestor barrier, soft ground area, adequate surveillance, bird hazard management etc. FOD (Foreign Object Damage) risk is one of the biggest challenges.

These landings are not conducted for spectator entertainment. Its a peacetime preparation to cater to loss of airstrips in war. There is no point in preparing a road to be as santitized as a runway, if thats done, the whole point if the exercise is lost. Also fighter jets are not as fragile as depicted. Most can easily land on unprepared fields, its only in interest of long term wear and tear is why they need to be pampered. In wartime if one fighter kills 2/3 enemy fighters its good, ideal kill ratio is 4:1. Its the civil aircraft which need good runways and prepared fields because they need to operate for a good 20 years of their life. What was happening in agra is to load test the road. If a c130 can land and the pavement holds, its good enough for a fighter jet.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by ads11

Here's my favourite 'land anywhere' story on the C-130. Behold below some of the zaniest carrier hijinks. Unassisted take off and landing!!! With a Hercules. On a Forrestal class. .

This is insane. It flies like a WW2 light weight glider. It was probably unladen though.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Also fighter jets are not as fragile as depicted. Most can easily land on unprepared fields, its only in interest of long term wear and tear is why they need to be pampered.

A video that (sort of) supports your statement - a Su-7 fighter jet wallowing in the mud like a Mahindra Thar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yaNylQ5a9o

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Its not as challenging as it sounds. There are lot of modern methods to achieve precision in landing in unprepared fields even. The Indian GPS system, GAGAN is already ready. Its a ground based satillite augumentation system which covers most of middle east, south east asia and Indian airspace. The highlight in GAGAN system is, any aircraft equipped with a GAGAN reciever, can recieve synthetic glideslope and localizer signals to any airport, uprepared strip or peice of road identified by gps coordinates that too right from top of descent. So in essense, coupled with an autoland the aircraft can track the synthetic ILS like signal from its cruising level, all the way to touchdown and rollout. On any airfield within India, which has aids or not.

Yes, But is it really that straight forward. You are probably much more familiar than I am with this topic. I thought the airfield and runway and the actual approach do need certification and by 2016 I think only 5-6 airports had approved LPV. Which required a initial GNSS based Aeronautical Survey to be carried out, tested etc.

I’m not so familiar with the details on what it takes in practices, but having the capability doesn’t translate automatically into it being allowed. Of course, this is for civil aviation and the military might have very different standards altogether.

Do Indian fighters have the required equipment on board? Are indian military pilots familiar and trained on these type of procedures.

Jeroen

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Yes, But is it really that straight forward. You are probably much more familiar than I am with this topic. I thought the airfield and runway and the actual approach do need certification and by 2016 I think only 5-6 airports had approved LPV. Which required a initial GNSS based Aeronautical Survey to be carried out, tested etc.

I’m not so familiar with the details on what it takes in practices, but having the capability doesn’t translate automatically into it being allowed. Of course, this is for civil aviation and the military might have very different standards altogether.

Do Indian fighters have the required equipment on board? Are indian military pilots familiar and trained on these type of procedures.

Jeroen

What your saying is right for civil aviation. Not for military flying especially in wartime. Most airforce aircraft have multiple capabilities to aid operations considering loss of navaids, denying of gps etc. So landing on a road is a part of the game here.
Our airforce trains quite well. If the chief says he is prepared for a 2.5 front war, he must have his reasons for saying so.

[hangover]

The plane was on just about minimal quantity of fuel. And zero cargo payload.

All US freeways built during the cold War were specifically designed to allow fighters to land on them.

Commercial planes are getting equipped with new systems each year.

These are:

1. 4D trajectory
2. traffic synch
3. network and airport integration
4. conflict management software

Obviously all this means huge investments. Billions.

But will it give any operational benefits? Cost savings?

What happens if your plane has all the above but some other plane nearby has none of it, other than the basic navigation Aids? You have to rely on eyeball mark I model.

Fighters and transport aircraft are now going the way of the tank. Obsolete.
They need hundreds of tons of equipment plus thousands of maintenance staff.

If I was a dictator of a country, I'd have only drones in my armed forces. I'd also buy some X4 fly by wire 300 kt top speed helicopters for my personal use.

I could attack my ungrateful neighbouring countries by sea, land, air and underwater sitting in my bedroom.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

What your saying is right for civil aviation. Not for military flying especially in wartime. Most airforce aircraft have multiple capabilities to aid operations considering loss of navaids, denying of gps etc. So landing on a road is a part of the game here.
Our airforce trains quite well. If the chief says he is prepared for a 2.5 front war, he must have his reasons for saying so.

I'm not so sure about the actual autoland capabilities of fighters in general. I thought there aren't that many fighter planes around that have autoland capabilities (at least in the US Airforce). Maybe the latest ones?

History is full of bold quotes, let's hope it doesnt need to be tested. World history has also shown that a lot of Chief commanders around the world were wrong on their armies capabillities.

Originally Posted by hangover

Commercial planes are getting equipped with new systems each year.

These are:

1. 4D trajectory
2. traffic synch
3. network and airport integration
4. conflict management software

But will it give any operational benefits? Cost savings?

What happens if your plane has all the above but some other plane nearby has none of it, other than the basic navigation Aids? You have to rely on eyeball mark I model.

.

There are huge savings to be had. And automation in aviation in the last couple of decades has always been pushing savings and safety.

Aviation regulation ensures that all planes in a certain air space are equipped with the appropiate systems that interwork. There is always a chance of somebody accidently straying into an area where they are not supposed to be. The most common is actually small GA aircraft entering into airspace they are not supposed to be.

E.g. if you fly into a so called Class B airspace (effectively airspace around big and busy airport) both he aircraft equipment and the pilot needs to meet certain requirements. So you need to be able to have the correct radio equipment (two way radio), radio procedure (you can only enter B space after a formal clearance), transponder etc. If not you won't be allowed to fly there.

So if I want to land my little Cessna at say Heathrow airport my plane and me need to comply to the same minimum B class standards as a British Airways 747.

Another examples:

E.g. these days a lot of the airspace between FL290 -410 is designated as RVSM airspace (Reduced Vertical Space). In order to operate up there your plane needs to be equipped with a particular TCAS version (TCAS II). You also need certified altimeters and a operable auto pilot.

RVSM is a good example of cost savings as it allows more aircraft to fly safely in the same airspace by reducing (vertical) separation.

[hangover]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I'm not so sure about the actual autoland capabilities of fighters in general. I thought there aren't that many fighter planes around that have autoland capabilities (at least in the US Airforce). Maybe the latest ones?

History is full of bold quotes, let's hope it doesnt need to be tested.

There are huge savings to be had. And automation in aviation in the last couple of decades has always been pushing savings and safety.

E.g. if you fly into a so called Class B airspace (effectively airspace around big and busy airport) both he aircraft equipment and the pilot needs to meet certain requirements. So you need to be able to have the correct radio equipment (two way radio), radio procedure (you can only enter B space after a formal clearance), transponder etc. If not you won't be allowed to fly there.

Another examples:

E.g. these days a lot of the airspace between FL290 -410 is designated as RVSM airspace (Reduced Vertical Space). In order to operate up there your plane needs to be equipped with a particular TCAS version (TCAS II). You also need certified altimeters and a operable auto pilot.

RVSM is a good example of cost savings as it allows more aircraft to fly safely in the same airspace by reducing (vertical) separation.

Auto landing isn't needed only during equipment failures. What about a pilot getting incapacitated? Or simply falls asleep in a warm cockpit.

Auto landing is extensively used on F18 hornets. These operate from aircraft carriers.

A pilot on landing approach has to make hundreds of manual corrections before the tail hook grabs it.

Why hundreds? Why only on aircraft Carriers?

Because the landing decks sway in the seas! It's not a stable ground.

Using auto land allows pilots to set the direction parameters to the landing deck in the auto pilot system.

Their hands are still hovering at the controls, but the number of corrections made manually is now in single digits, not hundreds.

FADEC is another even more sophisticated system. It controls everything from pre flight systems check, to optimization of fuel and altitudes.

The biggest problem with FADEC is no manual override, unlke the f18 one.

A failure to the FADEC means you will be in tomorrow's obituaries.

I think diamond aircraft in Austria, which makes diesel twins has it as a standard feature. Perhaps they have redundancies built into FADEC.

[Enobarbus]

Originally Posted by smartcat

In our neighborhood, Pakistan Air Force was the first to use expressway as fighter aircraft runways.

Pakistan Air Force may be the first to do this "officially" but one IAF Mig 23 did this in the 1980's. This was an inadvertent landing, that too during a night flying sortie, in Adampur.
If I remember correctly, it was one Squadron Leader Reddy who did this. He was probably disoriented and landed on the highway by mistake. It was a safe landing though, with no damage to aircraft or any private property or vehicles. The aircraft was brought back (you guessed it) on a flat bed truck.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by hangover

Auto landing isn't needed only during equipment failures. What about a pilot getting incapacitated? Or simply falls asleep in a warm cockpit.
.

That wont safe the day. There is also a difference between auto pilot and auto landing. Planes that land on auto pilot still need pilots to set up the systems, extend landing gear, set flaps, set speeds, arm spoilers, set missed approach altitude, set heading etc etc. Planes dont land themselves yet. The plane might actually plant itself on the runway or deck but it still needs pilot intervention during the approach/final. The pilot wont be touching the flight controls, but he/she will be throwing switches/handles/rotate knobs.

(unless military planes work very different from civilian planes.)

Originally Posted by hangover

Auto landing is extensively used on F18 hornets. These operate from aircraft carriers.

.

Not sure about extensively used. Pilots need to remain proficient and especailly carrier landings take endlesss practice. From what I know/read about it, it doesnt guarantee a 100% succes rate, but it does reduce the number of bolters as it tends to be better and pitch/yaw/roll compensation than most pilots. Navy helicopter have autoland system that allow them to hover over a flight deck that pitches, rolls and goes up and down whilst maintaining a fixed altitude above the deck . ((important for approaches, but also for winch recovery operations.

I do know the F18 is one of the few (if not only plane) that does a complete hand-off launch on the catapult. The pilot sets up the plane, puts his hand on a hand rest, the catapult fires and only once in the air, after the pitch up leaving the deckthe pilot take control.

check out this video: You can see the Hornet's pilot righ hand on the cockpit/canopy handle. As soon as he leaves the deck his right hand will be on the stick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bVM4aaNzL4

Originally Posted by hangover

FADEC is another even more sophisticated system. It controls everything from pre flight systems check, to optimization of fuel and altitudes.

The biggest problem with FADEC is no manual override, unlke the f18 one.

A failure to the FADEC means you will be in tomorrow's obituaries.

I think diamond aircraft in Austria, which makes diesel twins has it as a standard feature. Perhaps they have redundancies built into FADEC.

you might want to brush up on your insights into FADEC:

It is effectively what an ECU is to a car engine. It's a Full Digital Engine control system.

It's been around for several decades and just about every commercial jet and quite a few propellor planes are equipped with it. If you have an auto-throttle you will have a FADEC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC

Remarkable very few small one engine (propellor) planes such as the ones I fly have auto-throttles (allthough we do have very advanced auto-pilots). Hence also no FEDAC. So fuel, mixture, pitch (on props) are set manually or in some cases through some clever mechanical linkages so the pilots have effectively

Although FADEC controls directly the engine, a lot of redundancy is built in and of course, a lot of planes have more than one engine and can be flown safely on one engine.

[Sparks]

I do know the F18 is one of the few (if not only plane) that does a complete hand-off launch on the catapult. The pilot sets up the plane, puts his hand on a hand rest, the catapult fires and only once in the air, after the pitch up leaving the deckthe pilot take control.

Although FADEC controls directly the engine, a lot of redundancy is built in and of course, a lot of planes have more than one engine and can be flown safely on one engine.

US Navy tested ACLS (Automatic Carrier Landing System) Way back in the early 80's. The F18 Indeed is Certified for Autolands on Aircraft Carrier.

The ACLS system which is onboard the ship Guides the Aircraft to touchdown, without Human intervention.The ACLS Compensates for the carriers motion, timing the touch down for the optimum deck position during the carrier's Pitch and Roll cycle. The ACLS interacts with the Hornets Autopilot Directly, The throttles are also controlled by APC (Approach power Compensator)

The main purpose is Hands Off Aircraft recovery In Dark/Bad weather.

The decks landing Zone has Three wires for the tail hook to latch on too.
Pilots Deck landing proficiency is graded on which wire he or she consistently manages to latch on. The first wire means tendency to under shoot, middle is perfect score, third one is tendency to overshoot.

Another unique procedure is opening the throttles to max power at touch down in case the hook does not latch or is missed to enable a quick go around. Pilots on this forum will appreciate the very Unnatural feeling of opening full power at touchdown.

Hands OFF the controls is a standard USN practice for all aircrafts for catapult takeoffs. There is a designated person close to the canopy who verifies the pilots hands off the controls, The pilot in turn has to show him his or her hands and then hold the grab handle, its part of the pre takeoff checks, failing which the person on the deck will not signal Ok for launch.

FADEC,
The ECU or EEC is part of FADEC (Fadec replaces the hydro-mechanical unit aka HMU) . Its a more holistic system which has full authority digital control over an engine. FADEC uses Inputs from TAT probe, ADC(Air Data computer), FMC(Flight Management computer), programmed Limits, TLA (Throttle lever angle) etc, and runs the engine at its most optimum. It also monitors the engine health and is in direct communication with the operators and manufacturer health monitoring systems at all times. Number of in flight engine issues are negligible thanks to preventive maintenance capability provided by the FADEC.

[Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by smartcat

I think the stretch needs to be 'prepared' for aircraft landing - removal of small stones, debris and dust particles from the road. I presume the fighter aircraft did a 'touch and go' landing to avoid the possibility of Foreign Object Damage.

Smartcat could you throw some light on how the act of landing on a road could be of strategic advantage in a theater of war? I assume this capability would be used if the nearby airport has been attacked and made unusable? But what would a fighter plane accomplish? Epcecially if you can't just land randomly on any road. Refuelling and re arming maybe? But then wouldn't that require a lot of ground support at the landing site as well?

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

Smartcat could you throw some light on how the act of landing on a road could be of strategic advantage in a theater of war? I assume this capability would be used if the nearby airport has been attacked and made unusable? But what would a fighter plane accomplish? Epcecially if you can't just land randomly on any road. Refuelling and re arming maybe? But then wouldn't that require a lot of ground support at the landing site as well?

Mobile ground support equipment (ATC, radar, armaments, fuel, spares) is brought in from airbases nearby to the emergency highway air strip. Airports Authority of India has many of these mobile Air Traffic Control Towers -



Anyway, carpet bombing attack on the runway of an airbase will not damage it permanently. It is likely to be fixed in double quick time. Till the runway is fixed, all fighter aircraft operations can be managed from the highway airstrip.

You can read about the history of such highway landing strips here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip

[hangover]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Mobile ground support equipment (ATC, radar, armaments, fuel, spares) is brought in from airbases nearby to the emergency highway air strip. Airports Authority of India has many of these mobile Air Traffic Control Towers -

Attachment 1689549

Anyway, carpet bombing attack on the runway of an airbase will not damage it permanently. It is likely to be fixed in double quick time. Till the runway is fixed, all fighter aircraft operations can be managed from the highway airstrip.

You can read about the history of such highway landing strips here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip

They were probably used only for emergency landings.

Carpet bombing was not an option during the cold War. You would nuke a city. Period.

And you couldn't simply land your plane on the freeway because it was near your house.

It would have required police cooperation to stop all traffic before your own wheels down operation.

Plus no road is absolutely straight. They have curves and turns. So you would have had to select your "landing" spot carefully,

The freeway was mainly a job generating public work. Millions of people were employed to build it. And maintain it.

You could land military aircraft for sure, but that was an added benefit.

If you wanted runways all over the country, why bother building airports at all?